The Chairman asks Synod to sing Hymn 21:1,2 and 3, reads Mark 5: 21-43 and leads in prayer.

The Chairman notes that there are visitors from New Zealand and from our sister churches in the Netherlands. He extends a hearty welcome.

The Chairman reads out the credentials for Rev J A Boersema and Rev R ter Beek provided by BBK from our Dutch sister churches. These delegates are afforded the privileges as determined by Synod for delegates from sister churches.

The Chairman also reads out the credentials for Rev M Flinn from the Reformed Churches of New Zealand. He is invited to sit as observer with the privileges determined by Synod for observers.

The Delegates from overseas rose to indicate their agreement with the Three Forms of Unity.

Committee 2 presents its revised proposal.

Agenda item 9.2 Byford’s appeal on Article 93 re PCEA

It is proposed that Synod declare this appeal inadmissible.

1. Article 93, 1998 Acts, is a decision in which the FRCA makes an agreement with the PCEA. On the basis of statements the two bonds of churches could enter into a mutual relationship. Wisdom and orderliness dictate that once this decision goes to the PCEA the FRCA should keep it word and not start to change its agreement.

2. Thus, though technically it is a proper appeal, this matter should have been resolved before it was sent to the PCEA. Our ‘yes’ should remain ‘yes’ and ‘no’ should remain ‘no’.

Synod continues to discuss the proposal from Committee 2.

An amendment was proposed as follows:

Not to accede to Byford’s appeal to acknowledge that "the statements regarding the ‘supervision of the table’ and the ‘supervision of the pulpit’ are still open to misinterpretation and misunderstanding so that both parties will still give a different explanation of the same statements and will allow a different practise."

1. Byford argues that the statement regarding the supervision of the Lord’s table will be applied differently in the PCEA than in the FRCA. Byford correctly points out that the adopted statement does not restrict the PCEA from admitting guests to the table who are not members of one of the PCEA’s sister churches, as long as they provide an authentic intimation that they are members in good standing of another church which bears the three marks of the true church. The FRCA, on the other hand, admit only those guests who come with an attestation from a sister church. But by their own submission, Byford shows that the statement regarding the Lord’s table is not open to misinterpretation and misunderstanding. For the statement requires agreement to a Scriptural principle, while leaving room for a different application of this Biblical principle in the PCEA than in the FRCA.

Byford argues that the statement regarding the supervision of the pulpit will be interpreted differently in the PCEA than in the FRCA. Byford correctly points out that the adopted statement does not restrict the PCEA from admitting ministers to her pulpits who are not from one of the PCEA’s sister churches, as long as they are ministers of another church which the PCEA have recognised as true, and who have undergone the proper ecclesiastical examinations of the PCEA for ministers of the Word. The FRCA, on the other hand, admit only those ministers to their pulpits who come from one of the FRCA’s sister churches. By their own submission, Byford shows that the statement regarding the supervision of the pulpit is not open to misinterpretation and misunderstanding. For the statement requires agreement to a Scriptural principle, while leaving room for a different application of this Biblical principle in the PCEA and the FRCA.

Not to accede to Byford’s request that Synod decide "that Synod Launceston 1998 has wrongly decided that the doctrine of the church … is implicitly addressed in the statements on fencing of the Lord’s table and supervision of the pulpit."

1. The PCEA’s doctrine of the church has never been listed as one of the areas of concern, except inasmuch as it affects their view regarding the supervision of the Lord’s table and the pulpit. Deputies received this mandate: "In this discussion about the areas of concern, the confession of the doctrine of the church should be addressed when applicable" (Art 77, 5a, Acts 1990).
2. Synod 1998 thought particularly of the doctrine of the church when it tightened the wording in the statement re the supervision of the Lord’s table. Deputies proposed to speak of "another true church", but Synod deemed it necessary to speak about "another church of Christ which displays the three marks" (Art 93, Dec 1). If the PCEA agrees to these statements, they agree not to accept guests to either the Lord’s table or to the pulpit who come from a less pure church, but to accept only those guests who come from a church that displays the marks of the church, which are "the pure preaching of the gospel and the pure administration of the sacraments’. In this way, both deputies and Synod 1998 have taken into account the doctrine of the church as it affects these areas of concern.

Delete the words "The PCEA thus should rethink the principles underlying their current practices to bring them in line with the statements which are based on Scripture and confessions as adopted by Synod 1998".

Committee proposal 2 as amended is presented.

Synod decides not to accede to Byford’s requests.

Byford has recommended that Synod adopt the following decisions:

Recommended Decision 1:

1. Synod West Albany 2000 regrets the fact that Synod Launceston 1998 took decision 2 too hastily and without sufficient grounds and acknowledges that at this point of time, the Free Reformed Churches of Australia cannot offer sister relations as a first step towards full unity (under the conditions as are stated in the Decision 2 Synod Launceston 1998) before they have investigated the impact of their opinion regarding Purity of Worship upon such a relationship.

Grounds for rejection:

1. Synod 1987 was made aware of a discussion between delegates from the PCEA and the FRCA (in Melbourne in March 1987) about (among other topics) the purity of worship (see Acts 1987, appendix B, pg 5; see also Art 115, Obs 7c). While Synod 1987 listed a number of areas of concern that required further discussion with the PCEA, purity of worship was not one of them (cf Art 115, Rec 4). Now to include an item not included in 1987 (or following years) is not upright.
2. That the matter of purity of worship was listed in 1998 as an area needing assessment with respect of the Free Church of Scotland, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Ireland and the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Art 93, Dec 4, pg 51) does not automatically put the topic on the agenda for discussion with the PCEA – especially in light of the 1987 decision.

Recommended Decision 2:

1. Synod West Albany 2000 acknowledges that the statements regarding "the supervision of the table" and "The supervision of the pulpit" are still open to misinterpretation and misunderstanding so that both parties will still give a different explanation of the same statement and will allow a different practise.

Grounds for rejection:

1. Byford is very correct when they write that "The PCEA is of the opinion that you have to explain the phrase ‘another church of Christ which displays the marks of the church’ with the help of their opinion regarding ‘less/more pure churches’" (page 3, B). However, this reality does not make the adopted statements themselves open to misinterpretation and misunderstanding. The statements themselves are clear enough. The cause for possible misinterpretation and misunderstanding is the thinking of the PCEA which applies the concept more/less pure not to the local churches (as was the original intent of the Westminster Standards), but to other bonds of churches instead.

Recommended Decision 3:

1. Synod West Albany 2000 decides that Synod Launceston 1998 has wrongly decided that ‘the doctrine of the church, as mentioned in mandates to Deputies by Synod 1990, 1992 and 1994 is implicitly addressed in the statements on fencing of the Lord’s table and Supervision of the Pulpit’.

Grounds for rejection:

1. Synod 1998 thought particularly of the doctrine of the church when it tightened the wording in the statement re the supervision of the Lord’s table. Deputies proposed to speak of "another true church", but Synod deemed it necessary to speak about "another church of Christ which displays the three marks" (Art 93, Dec 1). This alteration shows already that the doctrine of the church was "implicitly addressed in the statements".
2. The intent of the statements was to achieve agreement between the PCEA and the FRCA on the principles behind the supervision of the Lord’s table and the guarding of the pulpit. By these statements, the PCEA would be forced to consider its practices of fencing the Lord’s table and guarding the pulpit (cf Deputies report, Act 1998, pg 128). Reconsideration of these practices would, of necessity, prompt a re-evaluation of their understanding of the doctrine of the church.

Recommended Decision 4:

1. Synod West Albany 2000 decides that the FRCA, before they can offer the PCEA ‘sister relations as a first step towards full unity’, have to investigate whether the PCEA is willing to work towards complete unity.

Grounds for rejection:

1. The decision of Synod 1998 reads, "to offer the PCEA sister relations as a first step towards full unity if they agree to the above mentioned statements …" (Art 93, Dec 2). That is, this decision as two aspects to it, viz 1, to offer the PCEA sister relations and 2, to offer these sister relations as a first step towards full unity. The PCEA will have to answer positively to both aspects. So Byford cannot maintain that the FRCA first has to investigate willingness on the part of the PCEA.
2. This goal was also expressed by the PCEA in their deputies’ letter dated 1 December 1993, as printed in our Acts 1994, pg 158: "While committed to the great goal of true and complete unity in accordance with Christ’s high priestly prayer (John 17), we recognise that the limitations imposed by sin and its effects, as well as the barriers of distance, will mean that this goal will not finally be realised until our Lord’s return".

Recommended Decision 5:

1. Synod West Albany 2000 decides to appoint new deputies with the following mandate:

1. To communicate to the PCEA Synod’s decision 1 that "Synod Launceston 1998 took Decision 2 too hastily and without sufficient grounds and acknowledges that at this point of time, the Free Reformed Churches of Australia cannot offer sister relations as a first step towards full unity;
2. To revise the statements re ‘the supervision of the table’, ‘the supervision of the pulpit’ and ‘Children in the Covenant’ in such a way that the statements are no longer open to misinterpretation and misunderstanding and that the statements also do full justice to the history of our contacts;
3. To investigate whether the doctrine of the visible/invisible church and the closely related notion of the pluriformity of the church is the cause which lies behind the less restricted manner of fencing the Lord’s Table and Pulpit in the PCEA; and
4. To investigate whether the PCEA is willing to work towards complete unity.

Grounds for rejection:

1. Since the previous four Recommended Decisions were denied, it follows that the mandate requested in Decision 5 cannot be granted.

Agenda item 12.4.2.3 Deputies report

1. Thank the deputies for the work that they have done and discharge them from their task.
2. Appoint new deputies with the following mandate:

1. Keep up-to-date with any new developments among the FRCP and RFCP;
2. Lend support to these churches, upon their request, by means of instructive literature that may help build up its Reformed character;
3. If funding permits, make a visit to these churches;
4. Report to next Synod.

1. Advise the Dutch sister churches that these churches not be directed to come under the influence of the Christian Reformed Churches of the Philippines (CRCP).

1. Although these churches show the desire to embrace the reformed faith, much learning is needed for them to understand and apply it.
2. Only time will tell whether the FRCP and the RFCP are willing to follow the Scriptural and thus Reformed doctrine and practice.
3. The members of these churches have very limited resources and badly need true Reformed literature.
4. It would be beneficial to all, the FRCA and the FRCP and the RFCP to maintain some face-to-face contact.
5. There is enough evidence to show that the CRCP does not preserve Scriptures in doctrine and practice as maintained in the Reformed Churches.

Deputies request that the report of the visit to the Philippines should not be included in the acts. It was also proposed to remove any personal reference from the main report.

Agenda item 12.4.3.2 Deputies report

To recommend to phase out formal contact with the Free Church of Scotland, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Ireland, and the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland.

1. A church does not become faithful or unfaithful on the basis of our findings or recognition.
2. As a small bond of churches it is important for us "to concentrate on relations and contacts with churches who are geographically closer to us "to concentrate on relations and contacts with churches who are geographically closer to us and for whom we have greater responsibility." (Acts 1990, Art 58).

In limiting the mandate for deputies for relations and contact with other churches, synod recommended "to phase out contact with churches with whom we appear to be making no progress" (Acts 1990, Art. 58). It has become clear that we appear to be making no progress with these churches as mentioned in the comments above.

Material:

Agenda item 12.4.3.1 and 12.4.5.3 Deputies report

To add decision 5 "to explore desirable levels of recognition and these implications".

1. So that the discussion with the PCEA may proceed in an orderly manner.

To discharge deputies and to appoint new deputies with the following mandate:

1. To convey to the PCEA our disappointment that they did not interact with the statements accepted by Launceston 1998
2. To ascertain whether there is still a willingness with the PCEA to discuss these statements on the basis of Scripture and our mutual confessions
3. If there is a willingness to discuss these statements, if possible via face to face meetings and in a forum which is deemed most suitable by deputies
4. To assess the PCEA final response and come with recommendations to Synod

1. Although the Inter-church Relations Committee of the PCEA resolved that copies of the statements be referred to the lower courts for their possible consideration and asked them to report back to their committee, only one of the presbyteries responded, yet did not really interact with the statements. Moreover, the Synod of the PCEA decided that there is no need for formal statements declaring our doctrinal and practical position beyond what is contained in our constitutional documents.
2. It seems there is some misunderstanding about the status of the statements. Deputies should try to remove this misunderstanding and so try to ascertain whether there still is room for further discussions.
3. In case deputies meet with willingness for further discussion, deputies should have the freedom to arrange a forum most suitable to bring these discussions to fruition.

The Chairman invited Synod to sing Psalm 85:3,4.

Acts Article 53 to 56 are adopted.

Rev M Flinn addressed Synod on behalf of the RCNZ conveying greetings. The full text of the address is in appendix.

Synod decides that Rev Flinn be given the following privilege:

1. To be able to address Synod on matters regarding the RCNZ if requested.
2. To be able to request Synod to speak on matters requiring clarification.

Committee 3 presents its proposal.

Agenda items 12.4.2.1, 12.5.4.5 and 9.13 Reformed Churches of Australia

1. To thank the deputies for the completion of their mandate;
2. Not to reappoint deputies.

1. Deputies have had "a few face-to-face" meetings to convey the FRCA appeal to the CRCA sessions and Synod.
2. Synod 1996 decided not to enter official contact (which has sister relations or union as its aim) with the CRCA at this time on the grounds "… that they and we travel in a different direction …" Further contact would thus not be meaningful but frustrating for both parties. Synod 1996 authorised deputies to send a letter of appeal to the 1997 CRCA Synod and to all their sessions, appealing to them to return to a distinctively reformed direction so that future contact may become possible and can be meaningful. The response of the CRCA to our appeal shows that the CRCA do not take the matters addressed in our appeal seriously, but regard the matters raised as nothing more than different practices.
3. Recent decisions of the CRCA Synod regarding women in the office of deacon, children at the Lord’s table and the dealings of Classis Tasmania of the CRCA with respect to Rev F J van Hulst, a minister recently deposed from one of our churches on the grounds that his teachings were contrary to Scripture show that the CRCA churches continue to travel down the path of deformation.

Alternate motion foreshadowed.

Discussion adjourned.

After requesting Synod to sing Ps 27:1,2, Br P Terpstra closes in prayer.

Last modified: July 13, 2000